Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

Group amps up fight against Pure Michigan campaign

Lansing State Journal
Published 8:01 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2016

A dray driver negotiates a snowy road on Mackinac Island during winter a few years ago.(Photo: Associated Press)

"First of all, they're claiming that an annual expenditure of about $34 million a year produces all sorts of positive benefits, when the transparent information that's available shows the opposite," said Michael LaFaive, fiscal policy director for the Mackinac Center and an author of the report. "This money, invested in infrastructure or across-the-board tax cuts, could probably generate far more economic benefits than the program itself."

Longwoods CEO Bill Siegel said the Mackinac Center's analysis fails to account for other factors — the economy, bad weather, etc. — that can influence travel. The Longwoods study controls for those factors to measure the effectiveness of the campaign.

"It's not surprising they don't come up with anything, it's just not an appropriate methodology," Siegel said. "What we're dealing with here is not research, it's polemics … it's ideological research-based."

The Mackinac Center study was based largely on an analysis of data from the federal Census Bureau, Department of Labor, and Bureau of Economic Analysis, along with data from the trade group the U.S. Travel Association. The think tank published the complicated formula it used to reach its conclusion.

The Longwoods study is based on economic data and a survey of 4,000 travelers across the U.S. that measured whether travelers are aware of the campaign and what they think of the state. The consultant then pushes that data through a formula it calls "R.O.Eye" to calculate the return on investment ("ROI" in economists' shorthand).

That formula is the part Longwoods will not reveal publicly. Siegel said he doesn't want his competitors to have it, but the Mackinac Center's report raised concerns that the math is "not open to public scrutiny, even though it is used explicitly to guide public policy decision making."

"We would like some back and forth, but so far the only words we've gotten from the (state) have been vacuous, if not a redirect from the facts at hand," LaFaive said.

Michelle Grinnell, spokeswoman for Travel Michigan, said the state supports Longwoods and is focused on the business of drawing tourists to the state. She referred the State Journal to a letter Travel Michigan Vice President Dave Lorenz wrote to the Mackinac Center.

"We are always willing to have open dialogue and conversations about the Pure Michigan campaign," Lorenz wrote. "But as your letter and previous posts on the topic clearly illustrate, this invitation is not about expanding knowledge, but rather providing a platform to push a specific position and agenda. As a result, I believe a debate would not be a productive use of our time and resources."